Orthodox Apes: To What Degree Can Theism, Evolutionary Theory & Orthodoxy Renconcile?

[Gxg (G²)]

Was recently hanging out with my sister and we had a really good conversation on the ways that man developed...specifically on the many differing interpretations of creation and how secular evolution has never made any sense about the origins of man. At one point, however, it was brought up by her that it could be possible Adam/Eve were not the only creatures on the planet at one point --and it really had me pondering how possible this may be. As said best elsewhere:

Historical Views

Another view sees humanlike creatures evolving as the scientific evidence indicates. But at a certain point in history, it is possible that God bestowed special spiritual gifts on those who had developed the necessary characteristics. This historical event would endow the recipients with the image of God. We can say that Homo divinus was therefore created from Homo sapiens. With these spiritual gifts came the ability to know and experience evil—an opportunity that was grasped with tragic consequences.


This view can fit whether the humans in question constituted a group or a specific male-female pair. In the case of a group, we can imagine that God interacted with all members of the group and essentially initiated the relationship that exists today. If the initiative was with a single human couple, then that relationship could spread to and through their offspring as that subset of the existing population came to dominate.... It is argued that bearing God’s image is not a matter of our physical appearance but a matter of our capacity to love both God and others, to have dominion over the earth, and to have moral consciousness. We are to image God (see our question on the "Image of God"). In this way we might distinguish between Homo sapiens and the image-bearing creatures that we might call Homo divinus..
​

For a better description, one can go here to the following:

• Denis Alexander, “How Does a BioLogos Model Need to Address the Theological Issues Associated with an Adam Who Was Not the Sole Genetic Progenitor of Humankind?” (Dec 2011)

Some are of the mindset that man evolved, to the point where the Lord bestowed upon him the image of God---thus making it possible for him to share links with others in the Primate family and yet be distinct when his intelligence underwent RADICAL changes. And on the issue of man being related to apes, there'd be nothing wrong with this (In my opinion). Secifically, Under the Scientific classification of Anthropoids:

Sub-Order: Anthropoidea,
Infra-Order: Catarrhine,
Super-family: Homonoidea,
Subfamily: Homininae,
Tribe: Hominini,
Species: Human.
​

The other "tribe" under Homininae is: Panini, Species: Chimpanzees. Humans are different for other primates in that we don't have an insulating layer of hair - allowing us to control body temperature through sweating. AND Our females go through a menopause sometime quite early in life, while other primates don't.And this wouldn't be an issue for "Creationists" in any way. Dr. Porsche built the original "Bebe" Renault, and the Economy models of the early Mercedes rear engine vehicles - AND the Volkswagens (in 1939). When one looks at the "guts" of the three (and of others he did) one can see a distinctive commonality of design, and similar features among all three - making it clear that the same "thought process" produced all three vehicles. BUT Nobody would try to prove that a Volkswagen was a "Bebe Renault" - but could easily demonstrate that the same "creator" was involved in both of 'em.

Some Christians think belief in evolution undermines the uniqueness of humankind and the reality of evil and the fall....but I disagree. For the Genesis account portrays Adam and Eve as Neolithic farmers. It is perfectly feasible that God bestowed His image on representative Homo sapiens already living in the Near East to generate what John Stott has called Homo divinus, those who first enjoyed personal fellowship with God but who then fell most terribly from their close walk with God (Genesis 3.8). All those who disobey God and trust in their own wisdom in place of God’s law reiterate the historical fall in their own being (Ezekiel 28.11-19). I don't see anything wrong with advocating that God may've made two species that have similarities and may've indeed come from the same stock while choosing to impart one aspect of Himself into one of the groups to make them far superior/advanced than all others in creation.

Not too long ago, there was an article from BIO Logos I came across..and I thought it was intriguing when it came to discussing what's seen in Genesis and renconcilling that with Anthroplogy. For more:

• Adam and Eve: Literal or Literary? | The BioLogos Forum
• What Does “Image of God” Mean? Part 2 | The BioLogos" ​

• Models for Relating Adam and Eve with Contemporary Anthropology | The Bio"" ()​

What they offered seemed insightful and, IMHO, it does bring up an entirely different realm of conversation when considering Genesis and how God described the role of Man (as well as the Devil) and the story of creation all the way up to Genesis 6/the Flood.​

Although I think the story of Adam/Eve is literal, I think the interpretation of it often gets missed. Where scripture says "God made man from the Dust of the Ground", I've always been curious as to why many say its somehow impossible for the Lord to have made other species similar to man (i.e. apes, primates, etc) and then with man, breath his spirit into man....with the Gift of God's Spirit imparted being what set man apart.​

The text doesn't say that only having 4 fingers/thumbs is what makes man in the "Image of God"...as other creatures share similar genetic make-up on some parts & have the same body parts. Yet that doesn't mean that we're the same fully. If apes /other species and humans were 100% the same in all things, it'd definately place an entirely different spin on the film "Rise of the Planet of the Apes."​

​

​

Seeing the Film puts an enitrely DIFFERENT spin on what it means to be in a Zoo---and makes one wonder what would happen if indeed was the case that something was naturally able to develop that'd be against man. For animals have learned to use tools, as well as to communicate on high levels of intelligence/network...even using tools to do things. Though never on the level as man, there's no saying that it could not happen where intelligence/development grew enough where a threat to man's survival occurred. Of course, if that happened like in "Planet of the Apes, they I'd say Apes would be seen as another creation of the "Beasts of the Field" (Genesis 1:24-25)...and having to fight against other species evolving would be an extension of the mandate from God to "Have Dominion" (Genesis 1:26-31). ..with both connected and what's seen in anthropology with "common links"/similar actions kept in place...

Concerning the theory of men being related to "beasts", there's actually another theory that says one of the beasts of the field would be the Nephilim from Genesis 6:3-5/ Numbers 13:32-33 ......and that the Nephilim were a species of primate not made in the "Image of God." Many believe they were on a differing evolutionary route than the group of primate that Hashem placed his Spirit in to create man...with man being the one that the Lord chose to work with and the Nephlim being the leftovers who evolved over time. Many ponder over the possibility of the Nephilim being a species of proto-human..basically an unknown or primitive species of human....and others feel that perhaps the Nephilim from Genesis 6 were the result of men breeding with other primates/blending to create a race of giants. Either way, they were far less evolved than man..​

For more, one can go here to the following:​

• Why Mylipin; / Myliypin; (Nephilim) - Michael S. Heiser
• Neanderthals | Reasons To Believe
• Neanderthal Project
• Neanderthal Nephilim?
• GIANTS OF THE BIBLE
• Who Were the Nephilim?
• Cavemen Are People Too!
• Neanderthal = Nephilim?
• Nephilim - Michael S. Heiser
• Hugh Ross, ICR, and Facts of Science
• Reasons To Believe - Were Hominids Human?
• Neanderthal and Nephilim - Are They the Same?
• Neanderthal/human interbreeding - The Panda's Thumb
• 2] Nephilim Skeletons Found, by Fred Harding, Tekline Publishing ...
• Theory: Nephilim were Neanderthal man « Xenophilia (True Strange ...
• Naked Archeologist Finds the Giants (Gen 6:4) « Josiah Concept ...
• Neanderthals in Genesis? Read for the answer. | The Old Testament ...

Other creatures being made outside of the Image of God as man was wouldn't mean that they don't have value or worth in the eyes of the Lord, as discussed more in-depth in #91 AND #92. For some articles discussing how men/apes are similar and yet distinct:

• Human Y Chromosome: 'horrendously different' from Nearest Living "Relative" ...

All of that is to say that in considering Patristics /what the early Church has to say, I wonder how far they'd be willing to go if it came to supporting Evolutionary theory today....

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I was recently hanging out with my sister recently and we had a really good conversation on the ways that man developed...specifically on the many differing interpretations of creation and how secular evolution has never made any sense about the origins of man. At one point, however, it was brought up by her that it could be possible Adam/Eve were not the only creatures on the planet at one point --and it really had me pondering how possible this may be. As said best elsewhere:

In Romans 5 (and somewhat in 1 Corinthians 15), Paul draws an analogy between Adam and Jesus, both of whom are representative of humanity. Since Jesus is a historical figure, it is argued that Adam, too, must be a historical figure in the very same sense. The difficulty with this understanding of Paul, however, is that it is difficult to reconcile with the scientific data.

Historical Views

Another view sees humanlike creatures evolving as the scientific evidence indicates. But at a certain point in history, it is possible that God bestowed special spiritual gifts on those who had developed the necessary characteristics. This historical event would endow the recipients with the image of God. We can say that Homo divinus was therefore created from Homo sapiens. With these spiritual gifts came the ability to know and experience evil—an opportunity that was grasped with tragic consequences.


This view can fit whether the humans in question constituted a group or a specific male-female pair. In the case of a group, we can imagine that God interacted with all members of the group and essentially initiated the relationship that exists today. If the initiative was with a single human couple, then that relationship could spread to and through their offspring as that subset of the existing population came to dominate.... It is argued that bearing God’s image is not a matter of our physical appearance but a matter of our capacity to love both God and others, to have dominion over the earth, and to have moral consciousness. We are to image God (see our question on the "Image of God"). In this way we might distinguish between Homo sapiens and the image-bearing creatures that we might call Homo divinus..
​

For a better description, one can go here to the following:

• Denis Alexander, “How Does a BioLogos Model Need to Address the Theological Issues Associated with an Adam Who Was Not the Sole Genetic Progenitor of Humankind?” (Dec 2011)

Some are of the mindset that man evolved, to the point where the Lord bestowed upon him the image of God---thus making it possible for him to share links with others in the Primate family and yet be distinct when his intelligence underwent RADICAL changes. And on the issue of man being related to apes, there'd be nothing wrong with this (In my opinion). Secifically, Under the Scientific classification of Anthropoids:

​

...........All of that is to say that in considering Patristics /what the early Church has to say, I wonder how far they'd be willing to go if it came to supporting Evolutionary theory today--and if the Church Fathers/Christianity in antiquity would be willing to accept certain things...

To be clear, alot of what I'm saying is within the realm of truly seeking to find out if it'd be possible for one to appreciate Orthodox thought and the subejct of Theistic Evolution (or evolution in any way) at any time---or if one must always go with what much of Young Earth Creationism is about. Some things that my sister brought up I really had to wrestle with, especially as it concerns things to what degree Adam/Eve multiplied...and if evolution could have been present in the text without the authors feeling like they had to explain everything...and if the Fathers were here today, I do wonder if they'd have an issue with it--or how they'd go about explaining things...


I was able to find this much on the subject, from Kallistos Ware:

• Kallistos Ware - Orthodoxy and Evolution
• DANCING WITH UNICORNS: Creationism
• Darwin, Evolution, Adam & Eve - Coptic Orthodox Divine Justice
  
  
  
  

However, I'm not certain if what he notes would be sufficient to represent for all within Orthodoxy on some of the things I'm wrestling with right now...

 

[ProScribe]

From my POV - I don't think we (homo sapiens) are biological relatives of wild jungle apes.

 

[Knee V]

In short -

I find it difficult to reconcile them; others do not find it difficult.

 

[Trogool]

Always worked fine for me. I agree with Archbishop Lazar. But that's just me.

 

[Knee V]

I believe that uniformitarianism is not compatible Scripture nor with the historic teaching of the Church with regard to the effects that we and our sin have had on the whole of creation. If creation has been subjected against its will to corruption and decay, then it would follow that what we see occurring has not been the case for the entirety of the universe's existence (expansion of the universe, radioactive decay of atoms, entropy, etc). Thus, I believe, when we look at the world and universe around us we have to bear in mind that we are observing a world that has at some point been subjected to Death and the effects of Death, but which has not always been so. The universe is detached from the Source of life and functions in a very "dead" manner, and would eventually fizzle out into cold nothingness if left to itself. Life behaves the same way. Physical life is now just a dead set of information that is ever becoming more corrupt, shifting and mutating with each new generation, itself subject to the same fate of oblivion as the rest of the universe.

IMHO, common descent, along with other theories, is the product of a universe that points us to its own Death and futility. Nature is still the creation of God and bears his stamp, and thus we can know of God through it. It is similar to us - we bear the very image of God, yet we are marred by sin, and thus you cannot look at me and know Christ and what it means to be truly human. To know the meaning of ourselves and the world around us, we must seek God's unique and special revelation to us, through His Prophets and through Himself Incarnate. The universe is marred just as we are, and we must be careful how much stock we place in the story that we think it is telling us.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I agree with Knee-V. I really can't see how they can reconcile, but there are far more folks more prayerful than me that do.

 

[jckstraw72]

the Saints and holy elders who have lived since Darwin and have commented specifically on evolution have all rejected it. St. Nektarios says its akin to mythology, Elder Paisios says its blasphemy, St. Justin Popovich says its New Age, St. Barsanuphius of Optina says its a bestial philosophy, St. Theophan the Recluse says Darwin and his followers should be added to the anathemas in the Rite of Orthodoxy, etc. They are all following the unanimous consensus of the Church Fathers who accepted Genesis as literal history, while also seeing deeper meanings to it.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Of all the so called "developed countries" in the world today, the rejection of biological evolution in whole or in part is a phenomenon that is peculiar and unique to the US, and found primarily in evangelical-fundamentalist circles. As Abp. Puhalo mentions, the arguments against it simply aren't convincing in the least, and offer no evidence to the contrary.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I am fine with evolution and don't see a conflict. I feel the science is overwhelming and it doesn't threaten creation, Original Sin, or there being first parents who had a soul and fell into sin. It doesn't change the need for Christ Jesus and a Saviour in the least. The Bible isn't and never was, a science book and God didn't intend it to be so IMHO. I don't believe that the earth is only 8,000 years old and the like. I don't disrespect people who reject evolution, but I can't swallow it myself. On the issue, I'm the antithesis of my buddy, ArmyMatt. At least we agree on Seinfeld!

 

[Dorothea]

Humans are made in God's image, and I don't think God is an ape.

 

[jckstraw72]

Of all the so called "developed countries" in the world today, the rejection of biological evolution in whole or in part is a phenomenon that is peculiar and unique to the US, and found primarily in evangelical-fundamentalist circles. As Abp. Puhalo mentions, the arguments against it simply aren't convincing in the least, and offer no evidence to the contrary.

Ortho Cat, you can believe in evolution if you want to, but the idea that its mainly American and Protestant is simply not true. Orthodox Saints have come out against evolution very strongly quite early on. St. Nektarios and St. Theophan the Recluse are very early responders. Of all the Orthodox Saints and elders who have responded to it that I'm aware of, only Fr. Seraphim Rose is American and has any connection at all to Protestantism. Russian scientists were also among the first to strongly criticize evolution from a scientific standpoint. So again, believe as you will, but its just not true that this is an American or Evangelical phenomenon. There is an organization in Russia, blessed to form by Patriarch Alexei II, known as Shestodnev (6 Days) which publishes a lot of material and holds annual conferences in which scientists and theologians from literally around the world participate. This organization upholds the traditional teaching of the Church Fathers and therefore rejects evolution. Here is a website from them that you can check out: http://translate.googleusercontent....xy.ru/&usg=ALkJrhjx2SMpsVd2DaWLA8zyF_NUtPJM5A

although it looks like it hasn't been updated in a while (they still include as an email contact the Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev who was martyred a few years ago).

 

[tapi]

Ortho Cat, you can believe in evolution if you want to, but the idea that its mainly American and Protestant is simply not true. Orthodox Saints have come out against evolution very strongly quite early on. St. Nektarios and St. Theophan the Recluse are very early responders. Of all the Orthodox Saints and elders who have responded to it that I'm aware of, only Fr. Seraphim Rose is American and has any connection at all to Protestantism. Russian scientists were also among the first to strongly criticize evolution from a scientific standpoint. So again, believe as you will, but its just not true that this is an American or Evangelical phenomenon. There is an organization in Russia, blessed to form by Patriarch Alexei II, known as Shestodnev (6 Days) which publishes a lot of material and holds annual conferences in which scientists and theologians from literally around the world participate. This organization upholds the traditional teaching of the Church Fathers and therefore rejects evolution. Here is a website from them that you can check out: Google Translate

although it looks like it hasn't been updated in a while (they still include as an email contact the Hieromartyr Daniel Sysoev who was martyred a few years ago).

It has to be pointed out though, that St. Nektrarios and St. Theophan quite likely did not have a proper understanding of the concept of the evolutionary theory. Back then, it was very often used as a weapon against religion in general according to the cultural atmosphere of those times and I'm certain that also caused dissent towards it in the orthodox theologians and elders as well. Therefore we need to use caution and discretion when quoting the fathers from that time period regarding this issue.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I am fine with evolution and don't see a conflict. I feel the science is overwhelming and it doesn't threaten creation, Original Sin, or there being first parents who had a soul and fell into sin. It doesn't change the need for Christ Jesus and a Saviour in the least. The Bible isn't and never was, a science book and God didn't intend it to be so IMHO. I don't believe that the earth is only 8,000 years old and the like. I don't disrespect people who reject evolution, but I can't swallow it myself. On the issue, I'm the antithesis of my buddy, ArmyMatt. At least we agree on Seinfeld!

Sharing my own personal stance...


If saying that man and apes are related and others wonder "What happened to the Apes? Were they stuck in time? Why is man more advanced?".... I'd say that apes/other humanids were simply at the peak of their development (for the time they're in)--with it being possible that the Lord chose to take part of the primate kind and make them into something more. This, of course, would not mean that development could not occur further with other species/sub-groups since even man has developed past the Creation state in intelligence/development of certain technologies and abilities...even adapting to differing environments. Those studying primates have noticed the same at differing levels, even though it's at a much lower level than man....and they don't necessarily look exactly the same as back in the day, just as man does not.



Some see things like evolution in the sense of divine guidance. Where others see random chance, many see the Lord choosing to "reboot" a system/cause a change just as Psalm 104:29-31 notes when it states that He renews the earth/its species.....bringing certain things about if He sees fit, whether that be further development or "freezing" something in place...or allowing something to continue to develop naturally but putting blocks up in its development (just as He did with man at the Tower of Babel and with the Flood, man's aging and ability to communicate greatly affected).


Only the Lord's spirit working in Us is what makes man able to do...and BE what He is above all other creations...and some have noted how the Nephilim (at certain levels) were actually what occurred when the angels began messing with mankind, not only mixing with them---but mixing mankind with lower species like apes and creating other groups like Neatherdals...Genesis 6.





I believe man was made in the image of God, as it is written, and that God made animals, after their kind. All creatures were made from the DUST of the ground, including every beast of the field (Genesis 1). It's no surprise then to see how some things with DNA are similar and traits seem familar---but being made in the Image of the Lord is what makes man unique above all others..and that has nothing to do with having no connection with other species already there, nor does it mean that intelligence/potential to develop it is only a trait reserved for man. animals would still be after their own kind and nothing I said went against that....and many respectable theologians/Christian scientists have noted that for ages--and for good reference on it:

• Evidence for God from Science: Christian ApologeticsA Scientific and Biblical Response to "Up from the Apes. Remarkable New Evidence Is Filling in the Story of How We Became Human"

For myself, as said best by another ministry known as "God and Science" in their article, "Must Human Evolution Contradict Genesis?" ( ):

..Cyril Vollert suggests in his Symposium on Evolution (1959) that evolution theory might integrate with Scripture if God directly infused the human spiritual soul into a fully adult subhuman primate. Such transformation would instantly change the entire material organization of that primate into true man. Vollert also proposes that this radical change might have taken place at the embryonic level. In that case, subhuman primates would not be the real parents of Adam, since his direct creation as a human being, though using evolved embryonic material principles, would be the work of God, who alone can create the spiritual human soul as well as raise matter to the level of this qualitatively higher new species. Even subhuman primates might readily rear such “offspring” as their own. This new species could then separate from the prior subhuman stock in the manner described above.

​

Legitimate, IMHO. I think being made in the "Image of GOD" isn't about having nothing in common with the animals as much as it is about being a NEW Kind of Animal, as man is both SPIRIT AND Body. That's radically different than anything else God has made in creation. God was very creative when he made man-kind--but whether he made man through evolutionary means or made man out of nothing, what matters is that man is special. He is truly of God's Kind.....


But on the issue of species having a limited amount of adaptability, here's something from what the scholars behind the ESV Study Bible said on the issue. In their words:

Should Genesis 1 be called a “scientific account”? Again, it is crucial to have a careful definition. Does Genesis 1 record a true account of the origin of the material universe? To that question, the answer must be yes. On the other hand, does Genesis 1 provide information in a way that corresponds to the purposes of modern science? To this question the answer is no. Consider some of the challenges. For example, the term “kind” does not correspond to the notion of “species”; it simply means “category,” and could refer to a species, or a family, or an even more general taxonomic group. Indeed, the plants are put into two general categories, small seed-bearing plants and larger woody plants. The land animals are classified as domesticable stock animals (“livestock”); small things such as mice, lizards, and spiders (“creeping things”); and larger game and predatory animals (“beasts of the earth”). Indeed, no species, other than man, gets its proper Hebrew name. Not even the sun and moon get their ordinary Hebrew names (1:16). The text says nothing about the process by which “the earth brought forth vegetation” (1:12), or by which the various kinds of animals appeared—although the fact that it was in response to God’s command indicates that it was not due to any natural powers inherent in the material universe itself.


INTRODUCTION TO GENESIS — Genesis and Science — The purpose of Genesis
The primary purpose of Genesis 1 seems to be to identify God as the Creator of everything who is completely separate from the creation, and to contrast him to the gods who appear in the creation accounts of the nations the Hebrews had contact with.


This account is well cast for its main purpose, which was to enable a community of nomadic shepherds in the Sinai desert to celebrate the boundless creative goodness of the Creator; it does not say why, e.g., a spider is different from a snake, nor does it comment on what genetic relationship there might be between various creatures. At the same time, when the passage is received according to its purpose, it shapes a worldview in which science is at home (probably the only worldview that really makes science possible). This is a concept of a world that a good and wise God made, perfectly suited for humans to enjoy and to rule. The things in the world have natures that people can know, at least in part. Human senses and intelligence are the right tools for discerning and saying true things about the world. (The effects of sin, of course, can interfere with this process.) (p. 44)
​

Just a thought. The subject of "kinds" not equating to "species" is something that often comes up when it comes to the issue of Creationism vs Evolution. Many admit that "kind" does not mean "species," but a larger grouping, and this is only after they are brought forth or evolved by the earth according to Genesis 1. Genesis 7-8 with the flood is also something that comes to mind. Others feel it would be better to translate "kind" as "all sorts of" ..like saying all sorts of plants and animals were brought forth from the earth. ..and with that said, I don't think it's against scripture to say that there were other species we were made similar to even though we're distinct from them---just as peacocks are different from eagles and eagles are different from penguins. Different species, yet within the same kind (birds)......and likewise, it could be the same with Men/apes. Man is in a class by himself, being made in the Image of God, even though he is within the species of primates alongside apes..



For more info, one can go online/investigate the following under their respective title at their own leisure:

• "Naturalistic Biological Change and the Bible -God and Science" ( )

• "Biblical Kind - Theistic Evolution - Faith and Science are Compatible" ()

• "Does Old-Earth Creationism Contradict Genesis 1?: A Rebuttal to Terry Mortenson's Article “Evolution vs. Creation: the Order of Events Matters” - God and Science" ( )

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Of all the so called "developed countries" in the world today, the rejection of biological evolution in whole or in part is a phenomenon that is peculiar and unique to the US, and found primarily in evangelical-fundamentalist circles. As Abp. Puhalo mentions, the arguments against it simply aren't convincing in the least, and offer no evidence to the contrary.

Never considered that before...but would you mind expounding on what it is that you meant by your statements when it coms to why other nations are not as focused on the subject as others within the U.S?

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I am fine with evolution and don't see a conflict. I feel the science is overwhelming and it doesn't threaten creation, Original Sin, or there being first parents who had a soul and fell into sin. It doesn't change the need for Christ Jesus and a Saviour in the least. The Bible isn't and never was, a science book and God didn't intend it to be so IMHO. I don't believe that the earth is only 8,000 years old and the like. I don't disrespect people who reject evolution, but I can't swallow it myself.

Some of it's interesting to consider. At one point, people threw away the idea of the Earth being geocentric hundreds of years ago, despite the Catholic Church calling heliocentrism a heresy. ....and yet the reaction was based on not having full information on what the scriptures noted.

Concerning what I've seen in patristic studies, St. Augustine thought that others were to not take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history...and as one believing in science, he remarked that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up. Later on, Galileo followed the same train of thought as Augustine when it came to his used defense of heliocentrism, and claiming it was not contrary to those Scripture.

The church at large felt that the Psalms always be taken literally----hermenutics makes a difference. People often said "take the word of God as it is" when it came to saying that only GEOCENTRISM was the valid view...and when Galieo came along later with support for heliocentrism/viewing scripture as did Augustine in that not all passages in were to be taken literally if it were a book of poetry or songs---especially the ones such as Psalm 93:1 and I Chronicles 16:30 on the Earth not moving. Galileo continued to press his case...and consequently, the church called him a "heretic" /put him on house arrest for ages. It wasn't until much later that the church recognized Galileo's claims had merit---and that perhaps their views of the scripture needed to be adjusted.


As it concerns the BIBLICAL account, IMHO, there's no real reason to assume that it's an EITHER-Or scenario where it must be either literal or figurative....and moreover, its not as if what's in scripture does not go alongside what's discussed in the world of science. For I think its sad to see how many in Christian camps have done damage when it comes to working with atheists in the world of science.....and avoiding evidence in anthropology that may go counter to what one interpretation of the scriptures say. However, its even sadder to witness how many Atheists assume that all Christians throughout history have been the same as those Christians doing damage....for that's not historically accurate. I'm again reminded of one of the greatest examples of religion driving science/not being its enemy - for St.Augustine of Hippo. St. Augustine (354-430) was the most influential theologian of the Middle Ages, gave thought for others to base their research on when it came to Christianity/science.


In his view of Genesis, he believed that God created all things simultaneously....where some things were made in fully developed form as we see them today, and other things were made in a potential form, so that in time they might become the way we see them now. He was also explicit that God did not create the world over the course of six temporal days. ..for as he mentioned in his book "The Literal Meaning of Genesis"/St. Augustine: The Literal Meaning of Genesis: Books 7-12 , "The sacred writer was able to separate in the time of his narrative what God did not separate in time in His creative act" (p. 36).

Augustine's thoughts caused him to take Creation Account as both allegorical and literal...for an allegorical interpretation does not necessarily preclude a literal interpretation, as interpreters such as Origen of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo maintained that the Bible is true on multiple levels at the same time. Essentially, when God made certain creations, it could also mean that some creations were instantaneous/fully developed while others were created instantly..though in the form of baseline material/"potential" growing with time. For example, the Word makes clear that all creatures were formed out of the dust of the Earth in Genesis 2:7/..Genesis 1:24-26. Yet only man was made with God's SPIRIT inside of Him and in His Image. When God formed man, I think it's reasonable to say that "formed" implies a process, and we need not see God forming man as one would quickly put together a gingerbread man...no more than it was the case when the Word says "Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field.


For more information, one can consider going online and looking up an article under the name of "Augustine on Scripture and Natural Science" ( )


One can also go online to "Google Books" and read a signficant chunk of what Augustine said on the issue in p.g 42 of "The Literal Meaning of Geneis"...as there Augustine noted that the interpretation of the creation story is difficult, with him remarking that we should be willing to change our mind about it as new information comes up...concerning the realm of science. As said in his words:

CHAPTER 19
​

On interpreting the mind of the sacred writer. Christians should not talk nonsense to unbelievers.

38. Let us suppose that in explaining the words, “And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and light was made,” one man thinks that it was material light that was made, and another that it was spiritual. As to the actual existence of “spiritual light”65 in a spiritual creature, our faith leaves no doubt; as to the existence of material light, celestial or supercelestial, even existing before the heavens, a light which could have been followed by night, there will be nothing in such a supposition contrary to the faith until un-erring truth gives the lie to it. And if that should happen, this teaching was never in Holy Scripture but was an opinion pro-posed by man in his ignorance. On the other hand, if reason should prove that this opinion is unquestionably true, it will still be uncertain whether this sense was intended by the sacred writer when he used the words quoted above, or whether he meant something else no less true.

And if the general drift of the passage shows that the sacred writer did not intend this teaching, the other, which he did intend, will not thereby be false; indeed, it will be true and more worth knowing. On the other hand, if the tenor of the words of Scripture does not militate against our taking this teaching as the mind of the writer, we shall still have to enquire whether he could not have meant something else besides.

And if we find that he could have meant something else also, it will not be clear which of the two meanings he intended. And there is no difficulty if he is thought to have wished both interpretations if both are supported by clear indications in the context.66 39.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?




​

There are many Jewish believers who've done much in bridging the worlds of science and Biblie together. Gerald Schroeder is one of the best ones I think you could investigate---concerning theistic evolution, as Brother Gerald Schroeder is a scientist/Orthodox Jewish theologian..and its amazing whenever it comes to presenting the perspective of evolutuon from the perspective from Jewish Thought.

Of course, he is not alone..as in our own times, most Jewish denominations accept the science of evolutionary theory and do not see it as incompatible with traditional Judaism, endorsing the stance of theistic evolution in the process. On the issue of Jewish thought/evolution, it has been the case that several modern Orthodox Jewish scientists have interpreted creation in light of both modern scientific findings and rabbinical interpretations of Genesis....where each of these scientists have claimed modern science actually confirms a literal interpretation of Torah. They all accept the scientific evidence that the age of the Earth and the age of the universe are on a scale of billions of years, with them also acknowledging that the diversity of species on Earth can be explained through an evolutionary framework. The most significant aspect, though, is that each of them interprets certain aspects of evolution as a divine process, rather than a natural one only---and therefore, each of them accepts an evolutionary paradigm while rejecting some aspects of Darwinism.

Outside of Gerald Schroeder, others to look into would be Nathan Aviezer-another Jewish physicist, who interprets the six days of creation as broadly referring to large periods of time, an interpretation for which he cites rabbinic sources, including Maimonides and Nachmanides. The physicist/teacher---Judah Landa--was already mentioned earlier as another solid character to investigate when it comes to others reconciling the Torah with factual evidence in the scientific world

 

[Gxg (G²)]

IMHO, common descent, along with other theories, is the product of a universe that points us to its own Death and futility. Nature is still the creation of God and bears his stamp, and thus we can know of God through it. It is similar to us - we bear the very image of God, yet we are marred by sin, and thus you cannot look at me and know Christ and what it means to be truly human. To know the meaning of ourselves and the world around us, we must seek God's unique and special revelation to us, through His Prophets and through Himself Incarnate. The universe is marred just as we are, and we must be careful how much stock we place in the story that we think it is telling us.

Great points and thanks for sharing them


I think (for me, at least) that the main issue that seems to be in need of addressing is showing whether all forms of death happened ONLY after the Fall of man. Personally, I used to think that it was the case that all death came after Adam/Eve fell--but when seeing things such as the possibility that they were not made immortal and that there were other animals who killed, I had to reconsider.

As a supporter of Old Earth Creationism (Progressive Creationism) and the thought that not all things within creation were originally peaceful as in the Garden of Eden, it seems reasonable to say that even those things deemed to be destructive in nature were made by the Lord as a reflection of how all of creation should always be in awe/fear of Him--and knowing what exactly they must face should they go outside of Him. Be it with sea monsters, deadly sea creatures or monsters of the land (i.e. giant snakes, giant lizards, giant birds, poisonious animals, etc), the Lord made ALL in creation. More was discussed here and here--and an article entitled Why Were Dangerous Animals Created?. IMHO, David Snokes has done alot of excellent work on the subject when it comes to discussing things we see today as probably existing before the Fall. It's more than reasonable to say that God created a world of good and bad forces....and among these topics is what Snokes describes as dangerous forces in Creation. He implies that some conclude that these forces were only products of the fall but the author declares that these forces are good. This discussion moves into an interesting observation about the “Leviathan” he highlights that this “Sea Monster” which first appears in Genesis 1:21 (tannin) is found also in many other locations in Scripture. This discussion again is mostly for the benefit of those who deny death before the fall as it is obvious that the creation of the “great sea monster” in Genesis 1:21 implies that death did occur before the fall as from all practical purposes “Great Sea Monsters” don’t live on “milk”.



It boils down to the fact that the Bible declares that “The darkness, the sea, the leviathan and the lion that catches its prey are all good things for which God is praised” ( Psalm 104:4, Job 41:1-3 / Job 41, Psalm 74:13-15 /Psalm 74 , Isaiah 27:1-3 , etc ). In his book, the discussion leads up to the conclusion that “God is dangerous and powerful"... in which the author quotes Romans 1:20 “for his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.”There are alot of things in creation which are truly "terrifying" in nature and put one in check...some of them I'd not want to engage.

Genesis 1:19-21

And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
​

Genesis 1

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Wild seeing some of the things in nature that are either venomous or dangerous, be it on the sea or on land...and yet, they were made that way by the design of the Lord--and in many ways, it's beautiful (IMHO), as it shows the sheer complexity of the Lord:

Animal Weapons: Episode 1 - Chemical Warfare
Steve Irwin's Ocean's Deadliest -Part 1
Steve Irwin's Ocean's Deadliest -Part 2​

From what I've seen, most of the stances against death inherent BEFORE the Fall/existing can often be directly tied to the stance one may have when it comes to what they see scientifically...and this is why I think it's important to note whether one's a Young Earth Creationist or an Old Earth Creationist. Old-Earth creationists (whether or not they are theistic evolutionists) accept animal death before the fall....for the fossil record records hundreds of millions of years of animal fossils, all of which are certainly quite dead. And others such as Hugh Ross (scientist/physicist) have done excellent work on the matter before in depth (seen here). Same with others such as the folks over at Bio Logos when it comes to evolutionary process guided by the Lord and the "survival of the fittest" dynamic. Young-Earth creationists (YECs) say that there was no death before the fall, and this is part of their theological proof that Earth must be young.


Concerning a Biblical defense of animal death before the fall :

• YECs often seem to assume that the entire Earth was the Garden of Eden, or that it was Heaven. On the other hand, the opening chapters of Genesis depict Eden as a limited geographic place somewhere in Mesopotamia, set apart from the wild lands outside of the garden. The lands outside of the garden could certainly have been a place where death (and predation) occurred as a warning to Adam and Eve of what would happen if they disobeyed. Without this visible illustration of what it meant to die, God’s statement that they would certainly die if they disobeyed could have been meaningless to Adam and Eve.

• We assume that in the pre-Fall world, God was only glorified by cute, gentle things like bunnies and daisies. But in the Scriptures, predation is portrayed as something that glorifies God (Job and Psalms (e.g. Ps 104:21)). There is no indication in these passages that something is wrong with the creation.

The claim that God’s “very good” creation had no animal death is contradicted by Job 38:39, wherein God glories in his ability to provide prey for the lion:

Can you hunt the prey for the lion, or satisfy the appetite of the young lions, when they crouch in their dens and lie in wait in their lair?... The eagle mounts up and makes a nest on high... Spies out food; His eyes see from afar. His young ones also suck up blood; And where the slain are, there is he.(Job 38:39-14, 39:27-30)
​

Psalm 104:21 also expresses the same idea:

The beasts of the forest prowl about. The young lions roar after their prey and seek their food from God... In wisdom you have created them all...(Psalm 104:20-24)
​

Regarding the issue of animal predation Augustine writes: “One might ask why brute beasts inflict injury on one another, for there is no sin in them for which this could be a punishment... The answer, of course, is that one animal is the nourishment of another. To wish that it were otherwise would not be reasonable.” ( Saint Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Volume 1 (1983), 92. ). Seen in this light, animal predation and death are simply God’s loving provision for the animal kingdom. Keep in mind that only Adam and Eve were granted eternal life through the “tree of life” in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 2:9). Since the animals did not have access to the “tree,” they had no way to avoid death....and it would not be a negative.

It should also be noted that prior to the creation of Eve and before the Fall, God brought the animals to Adam to name. The names Adam chose clearly suggest he was familiar with animal predation and death....the Hebrew word for lion (‘arly, Strong’s number H738) means“in the sense of violence;” cormorant (shalak, H7994) means “bird of prey;” hawk (nets, H5322) means “unclean bird of prey;” eagle (nesher, H5404) means “to lacerate;” owl (tachmac, H8464) means “do violence to.”These names indicate Adam had observed firsthand these flesh-eating predators inflicting suffering and death on each other in God’s “very good” creation, prior to the Fall.

Assuming one accepts this portion of Genesis literally, as most strict creationists do, it would seem to argue for pre-Fall carnivores, since many of the Hebrew animal names appear to indicate a predatory lifestyle.

Just some of the thoughts that I've been wrestling with for a good bit..

 

[Gxg (G²)]

St. Nektrarios and St. Theophan quite likely did not have a proper understanding of the concept of the evolutionary theory. Back then, it was very often used as a weapon against religion in general according to the cultural atmosphere of those times and I'm certain that also caused dissent towards it in the orthodox theologians and elders as well. Therefore we need to use caution and discretion when quoting the fathers from that time period regarding this issue.

Interesting...

Would you mind pointing me to any books or articles/videos on the subject verifying what you're speaking of so that I could investigate for myself? It seems, from what you're saying, that the reaction toward evolution was due to how they were being attacked by secular evolutionists--and thus, the system o evolutionary thought was associated with the actions of secular evolutionists.

 

[inconsequential]

Someone once suggested to me that we were physically different prior to the fall and when God clothed Adam and Eve in animal skins, that meant He made their bodies more animal-like to be better adapted to a fallen world. He speculated that this is why we appear to be related to animals.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Someone once suggested to me that we were physically different prior to the fall and when God clothed Adam and Eve in animal skins, that meant He made their bodies more animal-like to be better adapted to a fallen world. He speculated that this is why we appear to be related to animals.

Hmmm..

Was it within Orthodoxy that you were told of this specific theory? Never heard of it placed like that before, but it'd make sense with other things I've heard ..one of them being that Adam/Eve were in the process of glorification (theosis)/clothed in radiant light--and when they sinned, they lost that light and were literally naked before one another.....

To see "animal skins" placed on them in the sense you described it seems rather radical--but plausible, IMO. It'd go with the dynamic that man literally became like a brute beast apart from the Lord...a sort of de-evolution....